 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Workman v. State6/21/2000
three or more persons); AS 12.55.155(c)(10) (Workman's conduct was among the most serious conduct within the definition of the offense); and AS 12.55.155(c)(12) (Workman was on bail release for another felony charge) applied to sentencing for the January 1999 felonies.
At sentencing, the prosecutor argued that the court could sua sponte find aggravating factor (c)(12), but the court did not address the prosecutor's comment. Apparently, the court and the parties overlooked the State's previously filed notice of aggravating factors because the court made no findings on aggravating factors.
Judge Smith found Workman's prospects for rehabilitation to be "pretty good." But he found that Workman's sentence had to reflect general deterrence and community condemnation.
Judge Smith imposed a 2-year term with 1 year suspended on the 1995 second-degree burglary. On the August 1998 felony DWI, Judge Smith imposed the presumptive 2-year term consecutive to the burglary sentence. On the January 1999 felonies, although Judge Smith found no aggravating factors, he enhanced the presumptive term and imposed concurrent 4-year terms with 2 years suspended. Of the 2 years imposed, 1 year was imposed concurrently with the August 1998 DWI sentence and 1 year was imposed consecutively. For the fourth-degree assault, Judge Smith imposed a 1-year term with all but 30 days suspended.
Citing Comegys v. State, Workman attacks the propriety of his composite term. Workman argues that his composite term is excessive and that a 3-year term would be adequate to effectuate the sentencing goals discussed by Judge Smith. Workman also claims that his offenses and background compare favorably to those of the defendant in White v. State where we affirmed a maximum 5-year sentence on one count of felony DWI. He argues that a 3-year composite term is supported by his comparison of White to his case.
But Workman was sentenced on the probation revocation of his first felony conviction and on his second, third, and fourth felonies. Workman had a string of offenses as an adult following a series of contacts with the juvenile system that started when he was ten years old. As Judge Smith found at sentencing, Workman was a young man who had trouble "both with substance abuse, certainly alcohol[,] and with the property of others." Furthermore, Workman's composite sentence is less than the 5-year term imposed in White for one count of felony DWI.
Under Comegys, when we review a composite sentence imposed for several criminal convictions, we assess whether the defendant's combined sentence is clearly mistaken, given the whole of the defendant's conduct and history. At the age of 22, Workman had already accumulated four felony convictions. In addition, Workman's adult criminal history included several misdemeanor convictions. From our review of the record, we are not able to say that Workman's composite term to serve is clearly mistaken.
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|